In this Discussion
- beckysioux May 2008
- canoe7grape May 2008
- chancefrench11 December 2009
- cross98bengal February 2008
- DJRose May 2008
- dollarflame6 May 2008
- manx9shrine February 2008
- mayonaise January 2008
- moveadvice72 March 2008
- QueenofthePosers February 2008
- target35ghost February 2008
- Tempe Arizona September 2008
- thephantommilk May 2008
- tune1shade April 2008
- week84crab February 2008
- women60banana September 2008
The Nominations
I tried not to post, but I can't help it. 36-39. GAH!!!
What gets me angry is that it only happened because more older female voters turned out then expected, and old females tend to vote for Clinton. I find that extremely disturbing, because they are voting not so much on the issues as they are on the fact that she too is an older female. Voting based on gender is entirely antithetical to any sense of feminism and equality: preference and exclusion become equivalent. I hate that there are so many people who don't watch the debates, don't read the platforms, don't examine records and don't think about the issues- instead they pick somebody by false values such as "we need a woman president." We need more younger, informed voters to counteract the effect of the old ppl, and I don't care how that sounds.
Clinton just voted for what is essentially a war in Iran. When Mike Gavel called her up on it, she cackled. She has also CONSISTENTLY voted against funding for renewable resource programs. There are countless reasons why Clinton is not, in my opinion, the best person to lead this country (I've written about them in my blog). She's also not a very nice person (my favorite example: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Q3tjgaCBCU ). Have we all forgotten her derogatory impression of a southerner? And those fake tears she gave yesterday for sympathy votes! She plays dirty and for some reason, we allow it. The other night when she tried to paint Obama as a flipflopper (she admires Bush's tactics enough to use them herself, it seems), he calmly replied that they were not there to distort each other's records, and that shut her up. He's honest, clear and clean, the only candidate so far not to use third party money.
Let's face it: her best offering to the American ppl is her husband. He's the only reason she's in this race; if someone who wasn't Mrs. Clinton had her record, I doubt she would enjoy the same reception. When she said, "I've already made change. I've been making change for 35 years," her eyes bulging, she didn't even make sense. All she did is prove she's part of the old gaurd, the same old people who've been running things all these years and destroying everything they can. Do we really want 24 years of either a Bush or a Clinton? How is a dynasty at all a real democracy? Can we PLEASE get rid of the same old people and try something new? She feels entitled because she's Mrs. Clinton and it un-nerves me.
Well, onto Michigan, Nevada and SC...
...my "let's discuss" turned into something else, but I meant to say, "let's discuss," lol
What gets me angry is that it only happened because more older female voters turned out then expected, and old females tend to vote for Clinton. I find that extremely disturbing, because they are voting not so much on the issues as they are on the fact that she too is an older female. Voting based on gender is entirely antithetical to any sense of feminism and equality: preference and exclusion become equivalent. I hate that there are so many people who don't watch the debates, don't read the platforms, don't examine records and don't think about the issues- instead they pick somebody by false values such as "we need a woman president." We need more younger, informed voters to counteract the effect of the old ppl, and I don't care how that sounds.
Clinton just voted for what is essentially a war in Iran. When Mike Gavel called her up on it, she cackled. She has also CONSISTENTLY voted against funding for renewable resource programs. There are countless reasons why Clinton is not, in my opinion, the best person to lead this country (I've written about them in my blog). She's also not a very nice person (my favorite example: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Q3tjgaCBCU ). Have we all forgotten her derogatory impression of a southerner? And those fake tears she gave yesterday for sympathy votes! She plays dirty and for some reason, we allow it. The other night when she tried to paint Obama as a flipflopper (she admires Bush's tactics enough to use them herself, it seems), he calmly replied that they were not there to distort each other's records, and that shut her up. He's honest, clear and clean, the only candidate so far not to use third party money.
Let's face it: her best offering to the American ppl is her husband. He's the only reason she's in this race; if someone who wasn't Mrs. Clinton had her record, I doubt she would enjoy the same reception. When she said, "I've already made change. I've been making change for 35 years," her eyes bulging, she didn't even make sense. All she did is prove she's part of the old gaurd, the same old people who've been running things all these years and destroying everything they can. Do we really want 24 years of either a Bush or a Clinton? How is a dynasty at all a real democracy? Can we PLEASE get rid of the same old people and try something new? She feels entitled because she's Mrs. Clinton and it un-nerves me.
Well, onto Michigan, Nevada and SC...
...my "let's discuss" turned into something else, but I meant to say, "let's discuss," lol
Comments
I guess the way I feel about it is that there are some very positive things that can be said here:
1) The first two major votes this year have been won by an african-american and a woman, respectively. Huge.
2) The voter turnouts have been RECORD SETTING. And how can that be bad for democracy? People are going to the polls! That's a truly wonderful thing.
3) At least she's not a misogynistic non-christian hater (like MANY of the presidential candidates).
4) It's not over until it's over. Bill didn't win New Hampshire. A victory there doesn't mean a damn thing, other than the media coverage a winner there gets.
I hope some of this makes you feel at least a little better, my dear Sally. I was thinking of you tonight. :hug:
That's true, and you're right, that should be inspiring- but it's sad that there weren't as many young people voting in NH. I mean, youth has this picture of the hippie or the rogue liberal or something, but they really aren't. There's so much apathy..it's frustrating and alarming and depressing. One of my friends insists that there's no point in caring.
I hope some of this makes you feel at least a little better, my dear Sally. I was thinking of you tonight. :hug:
I didn't know that! That makes me feel so much better! I can't tell you how happy you've made me
Thank you!!! Love you!!!
I didn't know that! That makes me feel so much better! I can't tell you how happy you've made me
Thank you!!! Love you!!!
You know I have to go back to Adam on this because I'm not 100% sure, but I thought the young vote *was* very active thus far. I really don't know for sure though, so I don't want to say "oh yeah" when really it wasn't.
I'm mostly glad I could make you feel better. You're too sweet to worry this much so early in the game.
Thank you, Rachie. I really appreciate everything you've said. You're so wonderful- I imagine you with flowers in your hair, because you're so lovely and sweet. kisses!
Sally, I feel your pain. I really wanted (and thought) that Obama was going to win. And I pretty much have all the same complaints that you have about Hillary. And the same things to be said for Obama. We pretty much feel the same way haha
How come the polls said that Obama had a 10% advantage over Hillary, and then she ends up winning? How does that happen??
Come on Obama, you can do it! hahah
Sally, I feel your pain. I really wanted (and thought) that Obama was going to win. And I pretty much have all the same complaints that you have about Hillary. And the same things to be said for Obama. We pretty much feel the same way haha
Come on Obama, you can do it! hahah
We're Obama buddies! High five!
Yeeeeah! I mean, he totally was ahead! I guess I can't say if this is right, but the news all day here has been basically saying that it was because of her crying. She showed emotion and so older female voters responded.
If that's right, then that's sick. I mean, she showed no emotion when her husband was cheating on her in front of the whole world, but all of a sudden when it's convenient to get sympathy votes, she can show emotion.
O ya!!! Ya, Obama buddies! Great minds do think alike
That's a really good point. I totally think the crying thing got her sympathy votes. And she says that's it's just so hard some days to get out of bed? Give me a break. She doesn't do things, she has people to do it. It's not like she's some mother who has to take care of her kid and come home after working to make dinner for her family. I sure she has staff people that do everything for her. If campaigning is that hard for you, then you shouldn't be running. If she can't handle campaigning then how will she ever be able to run the country?
So Sally, vote on my behalf as well, OK?
What do you think of John Edwards? He's my favorite, partly because he was so against the Iraq war and partly because he seems more of a socialist than all the others, but he really hasn't got a chance. The US is too right wing for that. Argh.
I don't have any real issue with John Edwards, but I know some people from North Carolina (where he was senator) and they can't stand him. I tend to agree with them on most things, so I'm willing to take their word on things.
Btw, while I love Christopher Dodd, Joseph Lieberman makes me ashamed to be a Jew from Connecticut. Seriously.
So Sally, vote on my behalf as well, OK?
What do you think of John Edwards? He's my favorite, partly because he was so against the Iraq war and partly because he seems more of a socialist than all the others, but he really hasn't got a chance. The US is too right wing for that. Argh.
seriously alie, watch the darn daily show with jon stewart on More4 at 8:30
it covers the election with hummour, its how i know far to much about the US elections
I like Edwards. He did vote for the Iraq war, actually, but he admits it was a mistake and he apologizes for his vote (unlike Clinton, who refuses to call it a mistake and even voted for what is essentially a war in Iran).
I think Obama is far superior to Edwards in many ways: For example, even tho he was so adamantly against it 4 years ago, Edwards has now given in and taken third party money, while Obama has so far refrained (though he plans to accept it if he gets the nomination, unless the republicans agree to also refrain). Moreover, while Edwards is against the Iraq war now, he wasn't from the beginning, whereas Obama absolutely was.
But on the whole I like Edwards, and I think an Obama-Edwards ticket would be fantastic.
Clinton is so [insert explitive- no, insert many explitives!] dirty!
Not only did she indulge in a TON of push polling- which is the dirtiest thing anyone can do- but criticizing Obama for praising Regan?!
Look. The Republican party was the party that freed the slaves. It was Abe Lincoln's party. A little later, the progressive views of the Republicans and the conservative views of the democrats were switched. And that shows us that it's not the party that matters so much as the person. If Reagan did some good and Obama praised him for it, I think that's admirable. Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean that person deserves to be punched in the face- whereas Clinton really does deserve to be punched in the face.
But you know what? Nevada is a republican state anyhow, so they probly won't support Clinton if she gets the nomination.
I'm just so mad that she won b/c of her dirty practices. She's disgusting!
^^Good for Obama looking past party lines to praise another politician for their accomplishments. I will not be very happy if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination in Arizona. I've never liked her. Our primary is in a few weeks. In AZ, you have to be either a Republican or a Democrat to vote in the primary. It's a closed system. So many independents have been re-registering so that they can vote in the primary. So strange, I don't remember that sort of system back East.
Tempe, I'm not sure, but I think it differs by state, b/c NH had a lot of independents voting.
I'm glad you never liked her, Tempe! That makes me wanna hug you!
You and I can be Obama buddies, with Porifera and OK Go, lol.
And this is way off topic, but I just saw your profile pic and you look so pretty!
O ya, Tempe, be Obama buddies with us!
So, if I got to vote I'd also go for Obama, he seems so focused and sure about what he's saying without showing any false smiles and stays calm even though he gets critisized. Hillary totally loses it... I'm referring here to one of the debates, that Tabetha mentioned, where she says something about having change for the last 35 years. Here one can see her real face. I really really hope people are not voting because of gender, but I guess it's the easiest way for many people, they don't get informeed about content, they just claim to vote a woman because false feminism reasons.
Obama! ^^ yay
Reagan was an asshole. I'm sorry, but he was. The Republican party has done things right in the past, as you mentioned, but Reagan is not an example of this. He had the country is a serious economic crisis due partially to his fiscal policy. We promoted a George Lucas type defensive missile system that would be used from space. He was certainly a fantastic speaker who knew how to appear competent, but when it came to actual policy-making, he was kind of backwards.
I didn't hear Hillary's argument against Obama's praise for Reagan. But really, I am all for embracing the other side, but there HAS to be a better example than Reagan.
...Reagan...was able to tap into the discontent of the American people and he was able to get Democrats to vote Republican – they were called Reagan Democrats. We as Democrats right now, should tap into the discontent of Republicans. I want some Obama Republicans!
In other words, Obama wants us to unify, to be Americans rather than Democrats and Republicans. That's all that he was saying- that it's important to unify parties. What he admired about Reagan was his ability to transcend party lines and unify the American people (he won 48/50 = 96%: polarizing party was a non-issue). Maybe Clinton should work on her English comprehension skills, or at least listen to what he actually said. Excuse the sarcasm, but I can't respect someone as politically dirty as Clinton.
Clinton jumping up and down to distort his words as soon as she hears "Reagan" is childish. Obama does not aim to lead democrats- he aims to lead the United States, one nation, one people, one shared ideal of freedom. Clinton, on the other hand, exacerbates the division between parties; she'd go four years fighting Republicans whereas Obama would unify- not to mention that she's corrupt and doesn't mind war.